Do you support drilling for oil in the 1002 area of ANWR?

[Lisa_N]

yochumjy:

Do you mean there is no evidence, or do you mean you haven’t heard of any evidence. The caribou are not the only animals in the arctic: ie Polar Bears den and give birth in this area

Senator Leahy on ANWR
leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/anwr.html

Washington Post article which shows both sides:
post article

So, when you say there is no evidence, please do a little research.

Also you say there will be no development for human habitat. Um, you mean that there will be no buildings for people to work and sleep there? There will be buildings and roads, and I’ll bet there will be sleeping quarters and any number of human interventions.

John

John

John thanks for the links. Again I point out that even the Clinton and apparently Carter administrations believed drilling could occur on this tiny segment of a HUGE tract of land without serious damage to wildlife. I have maintained all along that of COURSE there will be some impact but will it be dramatic, irrepairable, insurmountable? No. THat is the source of my “no evidence” comment. Everytime you walk across a lawn there is impact. But again is this lasting, irrepairable, and completely detrimental to the area?

Again what is the point of keeping all 19 millions acres untouched by human hands? Compare those benefits with the potential benefits of drilling. I just don’t think you have much of a case unless touchy feely emotions rule.

Lisa N

 

[yochumjy]

I think it a bit funny that no one caught this. Are we interested in truth?

Isidore_AK:

I’m an Alaskan, we support ANWR. Even our DEMOCRATS support ANWR. Why? Because there will be NO DAMAGE to the environment. Yes, it will use a bit of land. It will be LESS THAN ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of the refuge.

First there is no way you can say no damage. None. There will be damage. Whether or not it is acceptable damage is the question. Second after all the roads, buildings and pipelines are all accounted for, the area used up will be larger than the 2000 acres of infrastructure, since this only counts the footprint of the oil rigs on the ground. Some believe this does not include roads and crew facilities.

Isidore_AK:

And for those people that want to go see the pretty Caribou…you can’t. ANWR is totally off limits to ‘regular’ people. Its not like yellow stone, there is NO tourism.

No tourism? None? Hmm, lets see what google brings up:
Rafting in ANWR:
outside.away.com/outside/destinations/familyguide2003/north_stars_3.html
Kayak/tours in ANWR
alaskakayak.com/bcs/ANWR/anwr_tours.php

Next you’ll tell me there is no tourism in Glacier Bay as there is no hotels there…

Isidore_AK:

PLEASE go to www.anwr.org for some FACTS before you start throwing around all the freaking Eco-Lies.

Careful, one persons facts are anothers lies. This is a pro-drilling site. I can come up with many anti-drilling sites if you need.

Isidore_AK:

Please take my words to heart on this. We need ANWR. Yes, its jobs, yes its money on our pockets. But thats not all it is. If ANWR is even half as good as it looks, we could cut our imports in half. We’ve been fighting for this for years…and wondering why people are too stupid to see the truth. I blame California.

Two things here, and this is the crux. NO ONE, NOWHERE, EVER, has said that we could cut imports in half. Where the heck do you get this. Not even the the most pro-drilling people have ever made such a statement. Talk about over the top. And as far as blaming people and calling them stupid? Shame on you, let us at least make this a rational discussion, please?

Isidore_AK:

People just don’t understand about Alaska…we are huge. Two and a half times the size of Texas. The environment is almost totally untouched. Our environmental regulations are extremely tight. I would go so far as to say that the department of Fish & Game is anal retentive…we have to DIRTY our wastewater after it comes out of the treatment plant before we can dump it in the ocean. Its too clean and fresh…it would harm the local sealife if we dumped it without adding silt and other ‘contaminants’…

You mean you have to return it to a more normal state. Fresh for you does not mean right for the environment, but I could see how this could be taken as over the top by some.

Isidore_AK:

I know that I’m ranting, but this means alot to us. You have to be here to understand…I have to chase off moose before I can have a BBQ. I’ve been late for work because there was a moose sleeping in the snow behind my car. There are bears in residential neighborhoods. Coyotes, foxes, and Eagles. I have Bald Eagles that live in front of my house. Eagles will eat small dogs…yes its a problem.

It sounds like you don’t actually appreciate the environment. I would LOVE to have your problems. I do love CO for it’s environment, but Alaska has always been my favorite place to vactation. My wife and I went on our honeymoon and a 5 yr anniversary trip. The country is beautiful!

Isidore_AK:

The thing is, I live in the BIGGEST city in Alaska. Anchorage has about 300,000 people. Half the population of the state. This is an ‘Urban’ area. Apartments, houses, condo’s. But still very wild.

Been there, it is okay, I’m sure the outskirts are wild. Juneau is like that too.

Maybe you made some of these statements so emotional for a specific reason, but please make it emotional AND factual. Either that or clarify your statements. Some of them are in obvious error. And all of you who support the drilling, before supporting someone just because they agree with you, make sure they are supportable. I am shocked no one called this person on this…

I am not attacking her on this, I just want the whole truth out. I am not saying there wouldn’t be some good that comes out, but I don’t believe the proportional good out weighs the bad points. That of course is just my opinion.

John

 

[Isidore_AK]

Sbcoral> Did you actually bother to read any of the information that I linked to? First off, you don’t have to go to ‘Northern Alaska’ to find untouched wilderness. In Canada, MOST of BC, and almost ALL of the Yukon & Northwest Territories are completely virgin. Up here, I can drive to the edge of the city and walk into the Chugach State Park…more than 500,000 acres of wilderness. More than 90% of our state is wilderness…Uninhabited by man, and inaccessable accept by bush plane. We have more planes and pilots per capita up here than anywhere else. Just three hours from my house I can be at the Denali National park…more than 6 million acres of wilderness…

No one is going to bull-doze or start a strip mine up in these areas…there is limited human usage though. We do have permanent roads and trails, and if there is a fire you’ll be glad we do. It allows access for rangers and fire fighters. We do have permanent buildings in these areas. In ANWR there are native villages. There is already a human presence…it ain’t hurtin nothin.

 

[yochumjy]

Lisa N:

John thanks for the links. Again I point out that even the Clinton and apparently Carter administrations believed drilling could occur on this tiny segment of a HUGE tract of land without serious damage to wildlife. I have maintained all along that of COURSE there will be some impact but will it be dramatic, irrepairable, insurmountable? No. THat is the source of my “no evidence” comment. Everytime you walk across a lawn there is impact. But again is this lasting, irrepairable, and completely detrimental to the area?

I don’t know that you can unequivically say that. What happens in the case of an oil spill? I don’t wish it, obviously, but mistakes happen. Would that/could that be dramatic? There are some parts of say Yellowstone, where you can not walk on certain areas due to the damage you could do to the fragile state of the mini-ecosystem. Could we be doing something like that here and not know it. Pro-drilling doesn’t address it, eco-type people are obviously going to say absolutely, true or not. As this area is along a coastal region and affects polar bears, which we have signed a treaty with other nations to protect, I “feel” (yes, it is true, I don’t have the answers) that we should leave it alone.
Lisa N:

Again what is the point of keeping all 19 millions acres untouched by human hands? Compare those benefits with the potential benefits of drilling. I just don’t think you have much of a case unless touchy feely emotions rule.

The benefits of 1 million gallons per day, is fairly small. We could make up for that, as one person wrote, by enforcing higher mileage rates on vehicles. We may just have to agree to disagree on this, although just using “touch feely emotions” to insinuate my opinion is not as good as yours seems below you.

John

 

[Lisa_N]

yochumjy:

I

The benefits of 1 million gallons per day, is fairly small. We could make up for that, as one person wrote, by enforcing higher mileage rates on vehicles. We may just have to agree to disagree on this, although just using “touch feely emotions” to insinuate my opinion is not as good as yours seems below you.

John

John you are right. We both have opinions based on facts we are aware of, facts we choose to accept or reject and feelings about wilderness issues. You choose to oppose drilling because in YOUR cost benefit ratio, the cost exceeds the benefits. Mine is the opposite.

It is based on my experience hearing the same “sky is falling” mentality with respect to the Pipeline (were you around when that issue was being debated? It makes this debate look like a ladies’ tea). All these dire predictions about the impact on wildlife proved unfounded and in fact wildlife have thrived. What if fears such as “what if there is a spill” or “what if polar bears are disturbed” are worth considering rationally and carefully but if such issues can be addressed then why perpetuate a state of impending doom?

Over the years having started as a strong “environmentalist” I’ve seen how predictions of doom have proven to be false over and over and over again. I’ve become totally skeptical, particularly when, living in a greenie weenie state like Oregon I see all sorts of ridiculous regulations that end up doing nothing but creating huge state bureaucracies.

Sorry but like the song says, won’t get fooled again. I think we can drill and mitigate the risks while still preserving literally millions of acres untouched. The upside potential is worth it to me. Obviously YMMV.

Lisa N

 

[yochumjy]

Lisa N:

John you are right. We both have opinions based on facts we are aware of, facts we choose to accept or reject and feelings about wilderness issues. You choose to oppose drilling because in YOUR cost benefit ratio, the cost exceeds the benefits. Mine is the opposite.

It is based on my experience hearing the same “sky is falling” mentality with respect to the Pipeline (were you around when that issue was being debated? It makes this debate look like a ladies’ tea). All these dire predictions about the impact on wildlife proved unfounded and in fact wildlife have thrived. What if fears such as “what if there is a spill” or “what if polar bears are disturbed” are worth considering rationally and carefully but if such issues can be addressed then why perpetuate a state of impending doom?

Over the years having started as a strong “environmentalist” I’ve seen how predictions of doom have proven to be false over and over and over again. I’ve become totally skeptical, particularly when, living in a greenie weenie state like Oregon I see all sorts of ridiculous regulations that end up doing nothing but creating huge state bureaucracies.

Sorry but like the song says, won’t get fooled again. I think we can drill and mitigate the risks while still preserving literally millions of acres untouched. The upside potential is worth it to me. Obviously YMMV.

Lisa,

My guess is the drilling will ultimately happen, and I pray that my worry ultimately turns into another one of the “the sky is falling” opinions.

As far as not beeing fooled again, I pray that we can apply that to more than just environmental issues…especially since as a society are being fooled all over the darn place. It used to be “free love”, but that just turned into “free death”. Maybe we’ll get it all right some day, but the devil is sorta good at fooling us.

God Bless,

John

 

[Lisa_N]

yochumjy:

Lisa,

My guess is the drilling will ultimately happen, and I pray that my worry ultimately turns into another one of the “the sky is falling” opinions.

As far as not beeing fooled again, I pray that we can apply that to more than just environmental issues…especially since as a society are being fooled all over the darn place. It used to be “free love”, but that just turned into “free death”. Maybe we’ll get it all right some day, but the devil is sorta good at fooling us.

God Bless,

John

John, good point. Funny how the same senators who are worried about denning polar bears being ‘disturbed’ are not a bit worried about killing unborn babies. I hate to sound like such a ‘one trick pony’ but the irony of this position never fails to amaze me.

Lisa N

 

[yochumjy]

Lisa N:

John, good point. Funny how the same senators who are worried about denning polar bears being ‘disturbed’ are not a bit worried about killing unborn babies. I hate to sound like such a ‘one trick pony’ but the irony of this position never fails to amaze me.

Lisa N

And on that, Lisa, we agree 1000%.

John

 

[Isidore_AK]

yochumjy:

I think it a bit funny that no one caught this. Are we interested in truth?

First there is no way you can say no damage. None. There will be damage. Whether or not it is acceptable damage is the question. Second after all the roads, buildings and pipelines are all accounted for, the area used up will be larger than the 2000 acres of infrastructure, since this only counts the footprint of the oil rigs on the ground. Some believe this does not include roads and crew facilities.

Lets say very limited environmental impact then. Ice roads limit the damage done by vehicles, the waste from the sites in hauled out, there will be ‘damage’ but nothing like what the greenies predict…

yochumjy:

No tourism? None? Hmm, lets see what google brings up:
Rafting in ANWR:
outside.away.com/outside/destinations/familyguide2003/north_stars_3.html
Kayak/tours in ANWR
alaskakayak.com/bcs/ANWR/anwr_tours.php

Next you’ll tell me there is no tourism in Glacier Bay as there is no hotels there…

When I mentioned that its off limits to ‘regular people’ it is. You can drive to Denali, get on a bus and take a tour. You can walk to the Chugach State park. To get to ANWR you have to charter a private plane. That’s a big freakin difference. About $20 in gas to drive to Denali, $3000 plus to get to ANWR.

yochumjy:

Careful, one persons facts are anothers lies. This is a pro-drilling site. I can come up with many anti-drilling sites if you need.

This may be a pro-drill site, but the info does match what I have seen at AK Fish & Game (where my Mother in law works), and what the anti-bush democratic local paper (the only paper…its so ironic that in a conservative state we have a liberal newspaper…) reports.

yochumjy:

Two things here, and this is the crux. NO ONE, NOWHERE, EVER, has said that we could cut imports in half. Where the heck do you get this. Not even the the most pro-drilling people have ever made such a statement. Talk about over the top. And as far as blaming people and calling them stupid? Shame on you, let us at least make this a rational discussion, please?

I will admit to some exaggeration of the reduction in oil exports. I was somewhat worked up when I wrote that. I still hate California (except for parts of San Diego…for obvious reasons), and I feel quite free to say that I think that the majority of people there (liberals) are stupid for various reasons. Many of which involve firearms and gays.

yochumjy:

You mean you have to return it to a more normal state. Fresh for you does not mean right for the environment, but I could see how this could be taken as over the top by some.

Fresh means drinkable. Yes, we have to turn it back into sea-water to dump it. That was my point, it was too clean for our silty water ways.

yochumjy:

It sounds like you don’t actually appreciate the environment. I would LOVE to have your problems. I do love CO for it’s environment, but Alaska has always been my favorite place to vactation. My wife and I went on our honeymoon and a 5 yr anniversary trip. The country is beautiful!

Been there, it is okay, I’m sure the outskirts are wild. Juneau is like that too.

I don’t care how many times you’ve vacationed here. I live here. My family lives here. I’ve been through Colorado, that don’t make me no expert…As to ‘actually appreciating the environment’ I do. I enjoy being outdoors. Mostly to shoot, but thats what I enjoy. Many many poeple here hunt & fish…thats what we’re known for.
When I see a moose standing next to the grill I think 'Hey, they deliver! And wonder why I can’t just shoot it and grill it…" I do appreciate tasty animals…(you should try Caribou…very very sweet meat. Mmm Mmm Good…).

yochumjy:

Maybe you made some of these statements so emotional for a specific reason, but please make it emotional AND factual. Either that or clarify your statements. Some of them are in obvious error. And all of you who support the drilling, before supporting someone just because they agree with you, make sure they are supportable. I am shocked no one called this person on this…

I admit to being worked up over this. I don’t know what numbers you have seen…but as they say, statistics can be made to say whatever you want…

yochumjy:

I am not attacking her on this, I just want the whole truth out. I am not saying there wouldn’t be some good that comes out, but I don’t believe the proportional good out weighs the bad points. That of course is just my opinion.

John

I am Male. Not female.

 

[yochumjy]

Isidore_AK:

Lets say very limited environmental impact then. Ice roads limit the damage done by vehicles, the waste from the sites in hauled out, there will be ‘damage’ but nothing like what the greenies predict…

Everyone tends to over-exagerate. And I place that on BOTH sides. You forgot to mention the buildings, though, their footprint will remain. As will the oil rigs, etc. I accept that the intent is limited environmental impact. I’m questioning the reality.

Isidore_AK:

When I mentioned that its off limits to ‘regular people’ it is. You can drive to Denali, get on a bus and take a tour. You can walk to the Chugach State park. To get to ANWR you have to charter a private plane. That’s a big freakin difference. About $20 in gas to drive to Denali, $3000 plus to get to ANWR.

Well, costly, yes, but still not offlimits to regular people. You could just as well say that most of Denali is offlimits to regular people. They only allow busses to go to the back area, unless you have a special permit like the major wildlife photographers get. $20 in gas gets you to a very limited area of Denali, granted the busses aren’t that expensive.

Isidore_AK:

This may be a pro-drill site, but the info does match what I have seen at AK Fish & Game (where my Mother in law works), and what the anti-bush democratic local paper (the only paper…its so ironic that in a conservative state we have a liberal newspaper…) reports.

I’m not so sure about the totally conservative comment. At least from your representatives point of view. It would seem that no matter how many times the people of your state vote no on aerial wolf shooting, your legislature just won’t listen.

Isidore_AK:

I will admit to some exaggeration of the reduction in oil exports. I was somewhat worked up when I wrote that. I still hate California (except for parts of San Diego…for obvious reasons), and I feel quite free to say that I think that the majority of people there (liberals) are stupid for various reasons. Many of which involve firearms and gays.

You really should chill out about CA. There are some severely twisted people and viewpoints running about, but hate? And why pray-tell is San Diego immune to your feelings? No, sorry, it is not obvious, am I out of the loop somehow? Seriously, I don’t know.

Isidore_AK:

I don’t care how many times you’ve vacationed here. I live here. My family lives here. I’ve been through Colorado, that don’t make me no expert…As to ‘actually appreciating the environment’ I do. I enjoy being outdoors. Mostly to shoot, but thats what I enjoy. Many many poeple here hunt & fish…thats what we’re known for.
When I see a moose standing next to the grill I think 'Hey, they deliver! And wonder why I can’t just shoot it and grill it…" I do appreciate tasty animals…(you should try Caribou…very very sweet meat. Mmm Mmm Good…).

I have no problem with meat of any type (well, I’m not a big cow’s liver fan). But you can enjoy wildlife without just shooting it. God made some pretty incredible animals in this world and some of us don’t just need to shoot it all. Let me put it this way, from my point of view, and I recognize that that is all it is, you don’t fully appreciate your environment. And whether you live there or not is completely irrelavant to the ANWR discussion. That is my land to, the state of Alaska does not own it. Will you get more kickbacks on your state income tax if ANWR goes through? That is what the payment is based on, isn’t it, oil?

Isidore_AK:

I admit to being worked up over this. I don’t know what numbers you have seen…but as they say, statistics can be made to say whatever you want…

NO STATISTIC ANYWHERE can be twisted into your statistics. So, on this, pony up or step away from the table.

Isidore_AK:

I am Male. Not female.

DANG IT. I thought I was so freekin careful not to use gender when typing. My appologies, my bad.

John

 

[Isidore_AK]

yochumjy:

I’m not so sure about the totally conservative comment. At least from your representatives point of view. It would seem that no matter how many times the people of your state vote no on aerial wolf shooting, your legislature just won’t listen.

I didn’t say totally conservative, just mostly…and lets not get into the mis-information on aerial wolf hunts (heres a hint, they don’t shoot them from the air…)

yochumjy:

You really should chill out about CA. There are some severely twisted people and viewpoints running about, but hate? And why pray-tell is San Diego immune to your feelings? No, sorry, it is not obvious, am I out of the loop somehow? Seriously, I don’t know.

Catholic Answers is based in San Diego…
As for the rest of Cali…I believe that the state is a cancer. The 9th circuit court has done more damage to this country than anything else…thats not to say that there aren’t good people there. I am making a very large generalization…

yochumjy:

I have no problem with meat of any type (well, I’m not a big cow’s liver fan). But you can enjoy wildlife without just shooting it. God made some pretty incredible animals in this world and some of us don’t just need to shoot it all. Let me put it this way, from my point of view, and I recognize that that is all it is, you don’t fully appreciate your environment. And whether you live there or not is completely irrelavant to the ANWR discussion. That is my land to, the state of Alaska does not own it. Will you get more kickbacks on your state income tax if ANWR goes through? That is what the payment is based on, isn’t it, oil?

If you are referring to the state dividend checks than yes, they are based off of oil income (there is a formula that includes income over time and other factors…).

I appreciate it, I really do. But its here to be used. The world was put here for us to use, if it comes down to people or the environment, the welfare of the people will always come first. There can be bo other way.

yochumjy:

NO STATISTIC ANYWHERE can be twisted into your statistics. So, on this, pony up or step away from the table.

I did go over the top on the import numbers. I admit that. Here are some numbers to munch on…

anwr.org/features/pdfs/ANWR_estimates.pdf
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf
The second is the USGS publication…

And again… www.anwr.org

 

[Catholicvegan]

I absolutely DO NOT support such drilling. Bush can’t seem to understand that animals need to live and his greedy friends at oil companies survive well enough. But, then again, why should we care about the animals up there? We need to power our SUVs…right, soccer moms?

 

[Jodi]

Yes I support drilling. I am also a real live ALASKAN. 25% of all taxes from oil go into the permanent fund that helps fund our goverment and social services, as well as a check that helps allot of poor alaskans buy their fall reserve of food for the winter. Prudue bay has been a marvel and the animals are thriving, if we can recreate it then we have done well. We need jobs up here. Our suicide rate for young men is 3 times the national average. We need places for them to work. I also strongly support the gas pipeline that will pump natural gas to the lower 48. And for anyone who wants to say we can’t drill may I recomend a personal visit. That way you can see for yourself and our tourist sites will get to keep some of your hard earned cash.

 

[dumspirospero]

You have your priorities wrong…we must take care of HUMANS first…I am a huge animal rights advocate, but I also believe we must put the welfare of humans before animals…that is all there is to it.

Let me ask you a question…you are starving in the middle of the woods…there are no plants or vegetables any where around to provide you with food…all you have is a shotgun…will you kill a dear so you can cook it and eat it…and live…or do you remain a Vegan?

Catholicvegan:

I absolutely DO NOT support such drilling. Bush can’t seem to understand that animals need to live and his greedy friends at oil companies survive well enough. But, then again, why should we care about the animals up there? We need to power our SUVs…right, soccer moms?

 

[jim_orr]

Catholicvegan:

I absolutely DO NOT support such drilling. Bush can’t seem to understand that animals need to live and his greedy friends at oil companies survive well enough. But, then again, why should we care about the animals up there? We need to power our SUVs…right, soccer moms?

For a person who identifies them self as a “Catholic” I don’t think your seemingly judgmental, vindictive tone serves you well, or the Church, especially when compared to the example set by our pope, and for that matter, compared to President George W. Bush, himself, as demonstrated by his comments in the candid and thought to be a private conversation with Doug Weed. You can be a “defender” of animals without snarling and being one.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m against it because the oil companies haven’t proved they can protect the beaches where I live from the junk that floats up on it from their rigs. Anyone been to the beaches in the President’s home state? Real environmental mess…
He’s not the only one responsible for Texas…but he sure didn’t help it any. Bush may be many good things, but environmentally friendly isn’t one of them IMO.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

No drilling there. It isn’t just about the possibility of spills. Unlike, for instance, Saudi Arabia, ANWR is an exceedingly fragile environment.

The answer “Caribou are more important than oil” is overly simplistic. It is not as if there is nothing living in ANWR except the caribou.

If you want to boil it down to something simple, maybe we simply need to get a grip on the difference between a want and a need. We don’t have the right to strip God’s creation in order to fulfill all our wants. Not only do his creatures suffer when we indulge our greed… our souls suffer, too.

 

[Lance]

I support it. If oil exploration/drilling and other types of mining are so necessarily environmentally bad why is it OK to do it anywhere. Is Alaska more important than the Gulf of Mexico, The Nort Sea or Middle East to God? I think not. He put the resources here for us to use but we are to do so responsibly. We definately have to make sure the compaines doing the drilling are being responsible and careful but that does not mean we should not drill there.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Lance:

I support it. If oil exploration/drilling and other types of mining are so necessarily environmentally bad why is it OK to do it anywhere. Is Alaska more important than the Gulf of Mexico, The Nort Sea or Middle East to God? I think not. He put the resources here for us to use but we are to do so responsibly. We definately have to make sure the compaines doing the drilling are being responsible and careful but that does not mean we should not drill there.

Is Alaska more important? No. But is environmental destruction in ANWR both harder to avoid and less likely to heal once it happens? Absolutely. It is more prudent to drill only in less-sensitive places first. Otherwise, we are like parents who allow the kids to do their painting over a white carpet, “as long as they’re careful.”

 

[Lance]

Steph,
You would do well to follow your signature and walk a little humbler. You have no idea why people drive the vehicles they drive. I drive a pick-up truck and do computer programming for a living, but on weekends I cut and sell fire wood to make a few extra bucks and use the truck to haul small logs and deliver split wood but you will also see me or my wife driving it to the grocery store. Large vehicles are safer, in Europe most people live within a few miles of where they work, in America or at least Illinois, it is not uncommon to drive 25 to 30 miles to get to work. Public transportation is not an option in many cases, mine inluded. You speake of ‘Joe six pack’ as if he or she were someone who is unsophisticated, just because you spent time in England does not mean you are more sophisticated or know more than a person who has spent their whole life in the US. IMO it is the Joe and Jane six packs who made this country what it is. If you don’t talk down to people and don’t assume that you know more or have more class than they do you will have a better chance of getting them to listen to you. Yes, I know I too should follow this advice.